I write separately to underscore my support for (1) affirmatively proposing that this Notice
result in model rules regarding performance measurements and reporting procedures that states
may voluntarily adopt and (2) creating a thorough record for the purpose of crafting a
comprehensive set of these measurements and procedures.

Adoption of performance measurements and reporting procedures as optional model rules
is consistent with my goal of promoting regulatory efficiency. It is clear that moving to model
rules is the most expeditious means for deploying sorely needed guidance to the markets and the
States. In particular, given the questions regarding our authority to regulate in this area raised by
the Eighth Circuit's decision in Iowa Utilities v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), I believe the
Commission would engender significant legal and political opposition if we attempted to impose
binding national rules before the courts resolve those jurisdictional questions. At the same time, I
believe it is critical that the Commission respond to states and carriers that have requested
guidance regarding performance measurements well before the courts are likely to reach our
jurisdiction. Guidance in this area that comes months or years late will be of little use in moving
the analysis already begun by the carriers, the Justice Department and some forward-thinking
States to the next level. Thus, by creating a thorough record with the intention of issuing model
rules regarding performance measurements in the near term, we are more likely to achieve timely,
well-reasoned results and pro-competitive outcomes than we would if we attempted to impose
binding national rules at this time.

In addition, by empowering the States and eliminating the potential for conflict with
existing State policies, I believe the model rule approach more appropriately recognizes and,
indeed, celebrates the marriage between the States and the Commission in giving birth to the pro-competitive, deregulatory environment mandated by the Act. In so doing, we shed further the
misperception that somehow States will not "do the right thing" in promoting competition unless
we essentially force them to. While I believe that seeking comment in this area via another
procedural vehicle (such as a Notice of Inquiry) would have been more consistent with the
Commission's commitment to adopt optional, rather than binding, rules, I applaud that
commitment and hope that it heralds an important advance in the tenor and tactics of the agency.

Likewise, I support the creation of performance measurements and reporting procedures
because they are consistent with my views about how the Commission may promote competition
most effectively. As the Notice itself points out, performance monitoring reports should reduce
the need for regulatory oversight by encouraging self-policing among carriers. Further, the
information collected in these reports will hopefully afford regulators the courage to shift the
focus of their activities from prospective, prophylactic regulation to vigorous enforcement, as in
the antitrust law context.

Of course, performance measurements and reporting procedures that are unnecessarily
detailed would impose undue burdens on incumbent local carriers without commensurate benefits
for competition. Thus, I support the goal stated in the Notice of balancing these benefits and
burdens, and I would endorse wholeheartedly the adoption of less detailed or burdensome
measurements and reporting procedures than are proposed here if doing so would still promote
competition and achieve the statutory requirement of nondiscrimination.

In closing, I wish to thank the able staff of the Common Carrier Bureau, as well as the
industry, for their diligence over the last several months in contributing to the proposals and
questions contained in the Notice. I firmly believe that, if we continue to work hard and to be
mindful of some of the considerations identified here and in the Notice itself, we will ultimately
enable the American consumer to reap substantial rewards in the form of deregulation and
enhanced competition.